'Roid rage, or general temper problems? Although it would be odd to argue against barbells yet do steroids. I guess the latter...

I just like to have fun.

Your stance is confusing me though, are you implying that before barbells, humans had no other methods for getting strong or lifting heavy things off the ground? You're on a primal message board, so the idea of picking up rocks, carcasses, etc shouldn't be foreign to you. Nowadays we have other fun things to pick up, and not all are conveniently equipped with a handy metal bar for easy pick up. If you truly cared about the best methods to "pick heavy things up" you would be training with sandbags or something similar. Few things in nature resemble a barbell... or none, so if you needed to pick up a person, training that movement with a sandbag would prove more beneficial than with a barbell.

Maybe we need to back up and you can explain what you meant when you asked me the original question, which was "What are the non-barbell ways to progressively train yourself to lift very heavy things off the ground?" .. and to which I replied with some serious responses, like sandbags, and some jokes, like family members. The way you phrased the question makes me think you think ONLY barbells are a way to get strong, which is frankly ridiculous as has been proven for hundreds of years before the "iron game" was even thought of.

I'm not sure what you're getting mad at me about.

Onto your 500lb deadlift = strong. Yes, someone that could lift that (or their bodyweight's equivalent) would be thought of as very strong. So would someone that could squat that, or pull-up/dip with 80+lbs of weight attached or any other potential measures. I DO agree, that a deadlift is an awesome all-around measure of strength, as someone with a big deadlift likely can do some of the above mentioned.

Compared to what? It's not a very good number among world class heavyweight power lifters, so in that group you may be considered "weak". Related to people that doesen't lift or recreational lifters you may be considered as a strong guy though, but it's relative anyhow.

Person A to a group B,C, D, E;

A: Who are the strongest of you guys?

Person B: I am the strongest because I can clean 400 pound over my head!
Person C: No, I am the strongest because I can deadlift 500 pound!
Person D: No I am the strongest because I can do farmerwalk with 200 pound in each hand better than all of you!
Person E : No, I am the strongest because I can beat all of you in armwrestling!

Just read, then later skimmed the Rippetoe article. So, what he's saying is basically, if you don't have access to barbells, then you'll never be truly strong?

Is that it?

what a load of horseshit.

I respect what I think is his main take-away "cut the bullshit and do the most bang for your buck" which I 100% agree with. I just don't like that he's saying the bar is the only way.

However, since I do squat and deadlift on a regular basis, I enjoy them and I can tell I'm getting strong but my goals or dreams when it comes to fitness have more to do with just squatting and deadlifting. If your goal is a 2x bodyweight squat, then more power to you. It's not one of mine, but I am adding more weight to the bar as time goes on, so if it happens I'll be very proud, but I'm not chasing it outright. I feel like that's looked down upon for some reason, but I don't give a shit.

I'm interested in this part "Successful lifters, bodybuilders, and strength athletes all have one thing in common: their training is based around six or seven basic barbell movements, and the variables that are manipulated are volume, intensity, and rest, not the number of exercises." That's a bullshit thing to say, would he say gymnasts are not "strength athletes" ? they don't train with barbells EVER, and they're considered very strong. Not only that, without directly training barbells are able to put up impressive numbers.

I would love to read a conversation between him and coach Sommers of gymnastic bodies forum.

Well, I hurt myself a month or so ago. I was up to 125 on the squats. Today I squatted 100lbs and it was hard. So yeah, you can lose strength in 3-5 weeks. Also, the strength of barbells only translated a little bit to hiking and backpacking. Easier to carry the weight but I often got sore afterwards.

Of course a barbell isn't a required tool for getting strong. It's just the most efficient tool we have.

I'd argue that progressive overload of bodyweight exercises is impossible after a certain point. It's certainly less definable and measurable than the poundage of plates on the barbell.

And I disagree with Gorbag about the specificity of strength. Strength is a general and persistent adaptation. Endurance is a short-lived fleeting adaptation by comparison. And coming up with new kinds of quirky sit-ups might be great, but they're poor tools for getting generally strong when compared to squats, deadlifts, bench presses, presses, and power cleans.

Once you are strong (Pick your own standard. I used a relatively widely accepted definition of a 500# deadlift as strong before. I am not yet strong by this definition, but I would never get there without a barbell), you may specialize that strength to whatever end you find appropriate.

If you don't care about getting strong, don't bother. Mark Sisson's PBF plan, for example, is a great plan for general health, but not one designed to optimize strength gains (and he never claimed it was). If general health is your priority, getting truly strong may be something you're not all that concerned with. You'll certainly get "stronger than average" doing it. And it may be better for your health than becoming the next Andy Bolton.

But Rippetoe's article is about getting strong in the most efficient way possible. And the most efficient way to get strong that anybody's come up with so far involves a barbell and a handful of compound exercises that allow us to move the most weight over the greatest range of motion, progressively overload our CNS's, and repeat the same basic exercises week after week.

Are barbell or body weight exercises better at preparing me to read forum threads where people argue at cross-purposes?

For that purpose, it is best to do neither. The best and most entertaining Internet arguments are unencumbered by actual experience or knowledge. This argument is only mediocre, as there are people on both sides of the discussion with actual knowledge and experience.

Compared to what? It's not a very good number among world class heavyweight power lifters, so in that group you may be considered "weak". Related to people that doesen't lift or recreational lifters you may be considered as a strong guy though, but it's relative anyhow.

Person A to a group B,C, D, E;

A: Who are the strongest of you guys?

Person B: I am the strongest because I can clean 400 pound over my head!
Person C: No, I am the strongest because I can deadlift 500 pound!
Person D: No I am the strongest because I can do farmerwalk with 200 pound in each hand better than all of you!
Person E : No, I am the strongest because I can beat all of you in armwrestling!

Person A: Well, but who is the REALLY, REALLY, strongest of you then?

Person B is the strongest. To clean (and jerk) 400lb, you would easily have a 500lb+ deadlift. This person can basically deadlift 400lb, explode with it and catch it on their shoulders, and then jerk it over their head and lock it out with their arms.

Even simpler, suppose you were presented with an unknown real life task requiring a lot of strength, which of these people would you pick to help you?

Person B is the strongest. To clean (and jerk) 400lb, you would easily have a 500lb+ deadlift. This person can basically deadlift 400lb, explode with it and catch it on their shoulders, and then jerk it over their head and lock it out with their arms.

Even simpler, suppose you were presented with an unknown real life task requiring a lot of strength, which of these people would you pick to help you?

Or we can turn the question back on Mr. Gorbag: Who can clean more weight, a person who deadlifts 500# or a person who deadlifts 200#? Who is more likely to beat me at arm wrestling? Who can do the longer farmer's walk?

Why is it that people who squat heavy tend to be able to leg press heavy, but the converse is not always true?

Strength is a general adaptation.

Sbhikes: Your deadlift went down from 125 to 100. What were you deadlifting when you started training with the barbell?

That's a bullshit thing to say, would he say gymnasts are not "strength athletes" ? they don't train with barbells EVER, and they're considered very strong. Not only that, without directly training barbells are able to put up impressive numbers.

I would love to read a conversation between him and coach Sommers of gymnastic bodies forum.

The conversation and the audience of this article is geared for us, i.e. regular people who want to be strong. Gymnasts are great athletes, and gymnastics do develop strength, but we are once again talking about regular people in real life. Say you are 30 years old, out of shape, and want to get in shape, a huge part of which is acquiring a good strength base. Should your top choice be gymnastics?

Most of us want strength to be able to lift heavy things, carry things, put heavy things on shelves, push things, pull things, have strong healthy joints, etc. What's the best way to accomplish this?

Similarly to what I mentioned in a previous post, for a real life task requiring a lot of strength, would you pick a powerlifter/weight lifter/strongman to help you, or a gymnast?